GTSPEC Fender Braces - Review + Pics
09-18-2007, 05:14 AM
#81
Registered User
iTrader: (43)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 2,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good write-up and nice setup. I have all the GTSPEC lower braces, to include the Tanabe Sustec brace. My Z already handles well in autocross but I can't wait to have these fender braces installed, in addition to the GTSPEC front strut bar.
09-21-2007, 11:39 PM
#82
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The West is the Best
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SinCity350Z
We race a bunch of Evos & STIs. Of course, being AWD, they are never in our class obviously. Here are a few of the faster ones that run the same races we do...
HG Motorsports Evo
Crawford STI
AMS Evo
Robispec Evo(s)
Evasive Evo
We are also starting on a Time Attack Evo. Its actually my newest daily driver and will be built most likely for Street AWD in 2008 and will most likely make its debut in the Redline Time Attack Finals at Laguna Seca. I will run that event in Modified AWD though because I will be busy driving the Z in the Street RWD class. The Z is retiring from Street class in 2008 though, so it will be replaced by the Evo.
HG Motorsports Evo
Crawford STI
AMS Evo
Robispec Evo(s)
Evasive Evo
We are also starting on a Time Attack Evo. Its actually my newest daily driver and will be built most likely for Street AWD in 2008 and will most likely make its debut in the Redline Time Attack Finals at Laguna Seca. I will run that event in Modified AWD though because I will be busy driving the Z in the Street RWD class. The Z is retiring from Street class in 2008 though, so it will be replaced by the Evo.
That z looks wicked..
any laptimes you can post of Big Willow, Streets Willow(long config. bowl) and Pahrump?
thanx
d
09-27-2007, 11:20 AM
#87
Registered User
iTrader: (43)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 2,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcpeyton
z-u-later---just did a quick search on "Tanabe Sustec brace" and can't seem to locate it specifically. Can you provide a link or additional info? Thanks.
10-03-2007, 06:46 AM
#92
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 2,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GTSPEC
To address GUITMAN32’s questions he is correct in thinking that the majority of the force would be applied through the front bolts. That being the case any stress on the bar would directly transfer through the front mounting bolts and put stress on the cars sheet metal (not at all what we want to achieve here). To counteract this all of our braces are designed to actually transfer the force away from the mounting bolts by using steel tabs. These tabs brace the backside of the bolt to the fender at 2 more distinct locations. This in turn then takes the stress away from these mounting bolts and allows the brace to do its job.
Please allow me to be the devil's advocate here, I am getting educated by questioning whats being done here, no offense intended. According to pics looks like the brace has a stiff axis that is vertical (along gravity - yaw axis) and weak axis that is horizontal (pitch axis). The only job this brace does it stiffen the support points in the stiff axis or vertical axis.
Now how does one know that stiffness is needed in the vertical axis for the Z, from the looks of a typical monocoque structure, its easy for the monocoque design engineer to increase stiffness/rigidity in the same axis that this brace provides, its actually hard to provide bending stiffness in the yaw axis for a manufacturer, so then strut to strut braces and strut to fire wall braces are needed.
So it leads me to believe that GTSpec thinks that Z needs bracing in the direction that is easy to stiffen up for a manufacturer in the chassis design, has GTSpec analyzed what is the effect of adding stifffness (are there any numbers to show that improvement), is it marginal or a big difference. I am prejudiced to think its former if it provides any stiffness at all, all it might do is increase the weight on the front.
It would be only natural to see what Nissan has done to Nismo Z for stiffening and use that to provide stiffeners for the normal Zs. Just because one can brace bolt holes together doesnt mean that the load path goes through the brace or in other words stiffness that connection points.
I would love to hear thoughts from GTSpec.
Last edited by spacemn_spiff; 10-03-2007 at 06:53 AM.
10-13-2007, 12:15 PM
#94
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Right Here
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spacemn_spiff
Thanks for the post, but I am not sure what is exactly being said here. Are you talking about stress or stiffness and why?
Please allow me to be the devil's advocate here, I am getting educated by questioning whats being done here, no offense intended. According to pics looks like the brace has a stiff axis that is vertical (along gravity - yaw axis) and weak axis that is horizontal (pitch axis). The only job this brace does it stiffen the support points in the stiff axis or vertical axis.
Now how does one know that stiffness is needed in the vertical axis for the Z, from the looks of a typical monocoque structure, its easy for the monocoque design engineer to increase stiffness/rigidity in the same axis that this brace provides, its actually hard to provide bending stiffness in the yaw axis for a manufacturer, so then strut to strut braces and strut to fire wall braces are needed.
So it leads me to believe that GTSpec thinks that Z needs bracing in the direction that is easy to stiffen up for a manufacturer in the chassis design, has GTSpec analyzed what is the effect of adding stifffness (are there any numbers to show that improvement), is it marginal or a big difference. I am prejudiced to think its former if it provides any stiffness at all, all it might do is increase the weight on the front.
It would be only natural to see what Nissan has done to Nismo Z for stiffening and use that to provide stiffeners for the normal Zs. Just because one can brace bolt holes together doesnt mean that the load path goes through the brace or in other words stiffness that connection points.
I would love to hear thoughts from GTSpec.
Please allow me to be the devil's advocate here, I am getting educated by questioning whats being done here, no offense intended. According to pics looks like the brace has a stiff axis that is vertical (along gravity - yaw axis) and weak axis that is horizontal (pitch axis). The only job this brace does it stiffen the support points in the stiff axis or vertical axis.
Now how does one know that stiffness is needed in the vertical axis for the Z, from the looks of a typical monocoque structure, its easy for the monocoque design engineer to increase stiffness/rigidity in the same axis that this brace provides, its actually hard to provide bending stiffness in the yaw axis for a manufacturer, so then strut to strut braces and strut to fire wall braces are needed.
So it leads me to believe that GTSpec thinks that Z needs bracing in the direction that is easy to stiffen up for a manufacturer in the chassis design, has GTSpec analyzed what is the effect of adding stifffness (are there any numbers to show that improvement), is it marginal or a big difference. I am prejudiced to think its former if it provides any stiffness at all, all it might do is increase the weight on the front.
It would be only natural to see what Nissan has done to Nismo Z for stiffening and use that to provide stiffeners for the normal Zs. Just because one can brace bolt holes together doesnt mean that the load path goes through the brace or in other words stiffness that connection points.
I would love to hear thoughts from GTSpec.
Hello, GTSpec, are you listening?
.
10-30-2007, 12:04 PM
#100